Elections In Ukraine Under Keen Control Of ‘Defenders Of Democracy’

Donate

Elections In Ukraine Under Keen Control Of 'Defenders Of Democracy'

Click to see full-size image

In the days leading up to the election in Ukraine, the US Congress decided that it was time to express its unwavering support for democracy in the country.

This was done in several ways.

One of them was reminding the global community of the “Russian Aggression” on November 25th, 2018 in south of the Kerch Strait, when Ukrainian Navy ships attempted to cross the strait without permission and were seized by the Russian Coast Guard, with the sailors arrested.

In connection to that, on July 18th, the Congressional Ukraine Caucus Chairs, Representatives Marcy Kaptur, Andy Harris, Mike Quigley, Brian Fitzpatrick proposed the aptly named SAILORS Act or “Stopping Aggressive Incursions on Liberty by Ordering Russian Sanctions Act.”

It is “legislation that would apply sanctions to 24 Senior Members of the Russian Security Service and their close associates until Russia releases 24 Ukrainian Sailors and 3 vessels the country illegally captured near the Kerch Strait in the Sea of Azov.”

This was, of course, a result of Russia’s “unprovoked actions” and specifically by its security service the FSB.

“The United States Congress continues to strongly condemn Russia’s dangerous naval assault on the Ukrainian Navy and the illegal detainment of 24 Ukrainian sailors,” said the co-chairs in a joint statement. “The event represents the latest in a series of malicious steps taken by Russia to undermine Ukraine’s democratic progress and the international rules-based order. The international community must not stand idly by as Russia increases its aggression in Europe and globally. The United States and the free world must raise the cost of Russian incursions until each of the 24 Ukrainian sailors are returned home and the vessels released. This bill sends a powerful message to the Ukrainian sailors and their families that the American people have not forgotten their heroic struggle to protect their nation’s democratic trajectory and sovereignty. We call on our House colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation and for Russia to immediately release the Ukrainian sailors.”

Separately, a Resolution was agreed in senate, introduced by Senator Rob Portman – it was introduced on February 14th and was accepted on July 16th.

“A resolution marking the fifth anniversary of Ukraine’s Revolution of Dignity by honoring the bravery, determination, and sacrifice of the people of Ukraine during and since the Revolution, and condemning continued Russian aggression against Ukraine.”

Among other things, it expresses support for everything “democratic” in Ukraine – the magnum opus of which is Volodymyr Zelensky’s democratic election and the peaceful transfer of power to him from ex-President Petro Poroshenko.

Congratulations were also given for the achieved autocephaly of the Ukrainian church, no mention of its unstoppable dissolution were.

In conclusion, the US Senate is resolved to the following:

  • Applauds the progress that the Government of Ukraine has made since the Revolution of Dignity in strengthening the rule of law, aligning itself with Euro-Atlantic norms and standards, and improving military combat readiness and interoperability with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) – especially in having secret prisons to torture people and known Nazis running for public office, plus unconstitutionally appointing public officials;
  • Affirms the United States Government’s unwavering commitment to supporting the continuing efforts of the Government of Ukraine to implement democratic and free market reforms, restoring Ukraine’s territorial integrity, as well as providing additional lethal and non-lethal security assistance to strengthen Ukraine’s defense capabilities on land, sea, and in the air in order to improve deterrence against Russian aggression;
  • Condemns the Russian Federation’s ongoing malign activities against Ukraine and renews its call on the Government of the Russian Federation to immediately cease all activity that seeks to undermine Ukraine and destabilize the European continent – as usual evidence is a luxury and it should only be provided when not reinforcing the current narrative;
  • Believes that the Nord Stream 2 pipeline poses a major threat to European security, seeks to further undermine Ukraine’s economic stability, and threatens to increase the country’s vulnerability to further Russian military incursions – impossible to miss a chance to condemn the Nord Stream 2 and falsely say that it is specifically aimed at Ukraine;

Finally, RT reported on a separate resolution that doesn’t appear to be on the US Congress website as of midday on July 19th.

It was submitted by Rep. Bill Keating.

“It is decided that the House of Representatives expresses support and readiness to help Ukraine in the fight against Russian attempts to undermine the universal commitment of the Ukrainian people to democratic values,” the document said, according to RT.

According to the text of the proposed resolution, “the overwhelming majority of Ukrainians in all regions note the importance of further strengthening Ukrainian democracy in the face of disinformation campaigns organized by Russia to divide the country and serve Ukraine and its democratically elected leaders as an insolvent state.”

The snap parliamentary elections in Ukraine are coming up on July 21st. It is interesting to see whether some known Nazis, or how many of the “highly moral” recruits of “Servant of the People” will make it into parliament, and democracy would ensue following that.

MORE ON THE TOPIC:

Donate

  • Gary Sellars

    I expect Zelensky and his people will have a big win and the Banderite scum-filth will lose hugely. Lustration to follow with every last cunt Nazi pig-fucker booted out their cushy government offices and into a jail cell.

    • AM Hants

      I do not trust Zelensky, owing to his mentors being Soros and Kolomoisky. No doubt he will be more agreeable after the elections or not, as the case may be.

      • Gary Sellars

        I don’t trust him either, for the same reasons, but even a thieving Chosenite bastard like Kolomosiky wants Ukr economy to improve and the nation to stabilise (even its only to make easier the grubby business of Oligarch racketeering). He knows that will never happen under the Banderites and their insane ilk.

        • AM Hants

          They are losing so much Russian investment, not forgetting the gas, which is due to end. However, still do not trust them, owing to who they choose for friends.

  • AM Hants

    4 July 1776, the US used self determination/will of the people, in order to become independent of Great Britain. The UK used the same argument for BREXIT, Scottish Referendum and Falkland Islands Referendum. The UN Charter, was set up, during discussions, in Yalta, Crimea, Russia, between Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin, together with the de-nazification of Europe and de-militarisation of Germany. The discussion led to the Potsdam Agreement 1945. Roosevelt, weeks after speaking of trying Allen Dulles (Operation Paperclip and setting up CIA in 1947), for treason died. Replaced by Truman, who having ‘little willy syndrome’, decided that Japan who had surrendered, should have a test run by using his bombers, to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Negasaki, in order to impress Stalin, with how advanced the US were with nuclear weapons of mass destruction. Churchill lost the election and was replaced by Atlee and not only Stalin, was present at the Yalta, Crimea, Russia discussions and signing of the Potsdam Agreement. Now EU Army, thanks to Article 42 of the Lisbon Treaty, will soon be up and running and ironically, under the direction of Germany. In 1949 the German Constitution agreed to de-militarisation and their Forces can only be used for peace keeping missions as they cannot be trusted with heavy weapons and systems, unless working with others. The Nazis, well, look how settled in they are, over in Ukraine, with so much support from the kids, who were given safe passage, when Operation Paperclip, provided safe passage to the Bolshevik and Nazi elite. Going back to self determination/will of the people, even NATO used the argument (explained in the 1970 UN Resolution 26/2625), to justify their invasion of Kosovo. Crimea used the same argument in March 2014, to return home to Russia.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a22f5706995b448f222110da2826cef6d66de99759c1eaf36ff2c64c39ab60d6.jpg

    A few weeks ago, I came across an interesting article, which is 269 pages, based on a hearing over in Washington DC, with regards why the US, never signed the ‘Law of the Seas Convention’. Where the various members of the Senate, explain why it goes against their commitments, not to be a signatory. How many times have they presented the argument to Congress and the Senate? How many times have they refused to sign up and not forgetting encouraging their friends (hostages) and allies to follow their actions? Including a few NATO member states, such as the UK and various others, that fund the White Helmets/ISIS/Al Qaeda CIA terrorists?

    Check out the members, who attended the hearing and also their involvement with Ukraine. John Kerry, Secretary of State, whose step-son was provided with a position with the Oligarch Kolomoisky’s Burisma Energy Company. As well as the SOS financial mentor, who also obtained a position with Kolomoisky’s Burisma Energy, together with the son of the US Vice President, Joe Biden. What did Kolomoisky get in return? Bearing in mind he was ‘persona non-grata’ in the US, until Biden made him a friend of Washington DC and he now has no problems accessing the US. Why did Biden go after the Ukrainian Prosecutor, who was not happy with Kolomoisky?

    THE UNITED NATION’S CONVENTION ON THE
    LAW OF THE SEA (TREATY DOC. 103-39)
    HEARINGS
    BEFORE THE
    COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
    UNITED STATES SENATE
    ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
    FIRST SESSION
    SEPTEMBER 27 AND OCTOBER 4, 2007
    Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations

    COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
    JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware, Chairman
    CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut
    JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
    RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
    BARBARA BOXER, California
    BILL NELSON, Florida
    BARACK OBAMA, Illinois
    ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
    BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
    ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., Pennsylvania
    JIM WEBB, Virginia
    RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana
    CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska
    NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota
    BOB CORKER, Tennessee
    JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire
    GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
    LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
    JIM DEMINT, South Carolina
    JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
    DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
    ANTONY J. BLINKEN, Staff Director
    KENNETH A. MYERS, JR., Republican Staff Director

    ‘…Our committee held two public hearings and four briefings to
    examine the Law of the Sea Convention. Representatives from the
    Department of State, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the
    U.S. Navy, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the Commerce Department
    testified in support of the Convention at various congressional
    hearings. Six Bush administration Cabinet Departments participated in the interagency group that helped write the Resolution
    of Advice and Consent accompanying the treaty. And the U.S. Commission on Ocean and Policy, appointed by President Bush,
    strongly endorsed U.S. accession to the Law of the Sea…

    The ongoing delay in ratifying the Convention would be just an
    interesting political science case study, if the United States were
    not facing serious consequences because of our nonparticipation. As
    a nonparty, we do not have a seat at the table to prevent proposed
    amendments that would roll back Convention rights we fought
    hard to achieve.
    In addition, as a nonparty, our ability to influence the decisions
    of the Commission on the limits of the Continental Shelf is severely
    constrained. Russia is already making excessive claims in the Arctic. Until we become a party to the Convention, we will be in a
    weakened position to protect our national interests in these discussions.
    Opponents seem to think that if the United States declines to
    ratify the Law of the Sea, the United States can avoid any multilateral responsibilities or entanglements related to the oceans. But
    unlike some treaties, such as the Kyoto Agreement and Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, where U.S. nonparticipation renders
    the treaty virtually irrelevant or inoperable, the Law of the Sea
    will continue to form the basis of maritime law regardless of
    whether the United States is a party. International decisions related to national claims on continental shelves beyond 200 miles
    from our shore, resource exploitation in the open ocean, navigation
    rights, and other matters will be made in the context of the treaty,
    whether we join or not.

    Consequently, the United States can not insulate itself from the
    Convention merely by declining to ratify. The Convention is the accepted standard in international maritime law. American’s who use
    the ocean and interact with other nations on the ocean, including
    the Navy, shipping interests and fisherman have told me that they
    already have to contend with provisions of the Law of the Sea on
    a daily basis. They want the United States to participate in the
    structures of the Law of the Sea to defend their interests and to
    make sure that other nations respect our rights and our claims…

    …Let me first address sovereignty, which includes the expansion of
    U.S. sovereign rights over maritime areas. The Convention provides for maximum sovereignty over a territorial sea of 12 nautical
    miles from the coastline, and sovereign rights over natural resources out to 200 miles, within the so-called exclusive economic
    zone. It also recognizes sovereign rights over resources found in
    and on the Continental Shelf, including oil, gas, and other resources. The shelf extends automatically out to 200 miles, but may
    extend beyond that point if it meets certain geological criteria.
    The United States stands to secure resource rights over one of
    the largest Continental Shelves in the world, including up to 600
    miles off Alaska. Our extended shelf is likely to be the size of an
    area equal to two Californias. United States interests are well
    served, not only by the Convention’s substantive definition of the
    Continental Shelf, but also by the procedure it sets forth for parties
    to gain international recognition and legal certainty concerning the
    outer limits of the shelf.
    Recent Russian activities in the Arctic, all the way to the North
    Pole, have focused attention on this aspect of the Convention. Continuing data collection by Russia and other parties to the Convention, reflect a commitment to maximizing their sovereign rights
    over natural resources in that region.

    The United States is at a distinct disadvantage in relation to
    such parties. As a nonparty, we are not currently in a position to
    maximize U.S. sovereign rights over the shelf in the Arctic or elsewhere. We have no access to the Convention procedure that would
    assure the full exercise of our sovereign rights. In the absence of
    such international recognition and legal certainty, U.S. companies
    are unlikely to secure the necessary financing and insurance to exploit energy resources on the extended shelf…

    https://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/092707_100407_Transcript_The%20United%20Nations%20Convention%20on%20the%20Law%20of%20the%20Sea.pdf

    The Law of the Seas Convention, applies not only to the Kerch Straits, but, also, the Arctic Shelf (remember Russia is the only nation which has sent ground samples of the arctic shelf, to the UN, to prove it’s territorial claim. The US cannot do the same, owing to not signing the Law of the Seas Convention). Also, the Straits of Hormuz, is also covered by the Law of the Seas Convention.

    So, the US may demand all it wants, however, they have no justification, owing to international law.